SANDPOINT — A land use hearing to review a conditional use permit for a proposed cell tower in Sandpoint has been continued until February, following a four-hour presentation from the appellants and applicants.  

The hearing stems from a June 2025 judicial review in which the court vacated the Bonner County commissioners’ Aug. 2, 2024, approval of the permit and remanded the file back to the county for reconsideration.  

The county opted to rehear the matter de novo, meaning from the beginning.  

During the four-hour hearing, applicant and appellant representatives presented arguments addressing the necessity of the proposed tower for Verizon coverage and the potential impacts on neighboring properties.  

Verizon Wireless is a co-applicant of the file, where its coverage data is central to the project. 

Applicant representative Josh Leonard argued that the proposed tower meets all applicable Bonner County Code requirements and is necessary to address a gap in Verizon wireless coverage in the Elmira area. Leonard said the gap could not be resolved through colocation on an existing structure. 

Independent radio frequency engineer Steve Kennedy also spoke in favor of the project, presenting his own analysis of Verizon cell coverage that he said shows a four- to seven-mile gap in coverage along U.S. Highway 95 near Elmira. 

Commissioners questioned the findings, noting that his conclusions conflicted with Verizon’s publicly available coverage map, which does not indicate a “significant gap in coverage” in the area. 

Kennedy said Verizon's coverage maps are based on operational path loss, whereas his own analysis relies on reference signal received power. This metric measures the quality of the radio link between a device and the serving cell.  

After Kennedy’s presentation, Leonard further noted, among other findings, that Idaho homeowners “do not have the right to a view,” and that only direct evidence may be used when determining a property’s value.  

“According to Idaho law, direct evidence is what’s required. Anecdotal property value claims, even by Realtors, are not direct evidence,” said Leonard. 

Representative for project appellants Norm Semanko shared that the file’s approval was vacated on the grounds of a lack of proven necessity for the community and the failure to consider adverse effects that the project would have upon neighboring properties. Before letting project appellant Joan Esnayra present, Semanko shared that the file was appealed by 20 community members who are against the tower due to its lack of necessity and aesthetic impact on the surrounding community.  

Esnayra began by saying that the file's approval should be based on the cell tower’s ability to close a significant gap in service coverage and should also be the least intrusive means of remedying the gap in coverage.  

She presented several letters from community members in opposition to the project, saying that the tower diminished the rural character of the area due to its height and visibility from neighboring properties.  

Sharing testimonies from residents in the area, Esnayra additionally noted that Kennedy’s data did not match their own research, and “lacked methodological transparency and hard, raw data.” 

“We conducted citizen drive tests, and that data we will share with you, and that refutes the (applicant) drive test report,” Esnayra said. “We have a number of Elmira residents who submitted written, signed testimonials, refuting the claims of the applicants drive test report.” 

Esnayra further said her analysis showed zero dropped calls while traveling through the Elmira area along U.S. Highway 95.

She also cited a nearby home sale, saying the property sold for 17% less than its original listing price after the owners learned of the proposed tower — a claim disputed by the applicant. 

Esnayra concluded by identifying alternative colocation sites that she said could provide adequate coverage without the construction of a new tower.

Commissioners moved to continue the file to Feb. 11 due to time constraints, where the applicant is expected to rebut the appellants' presentation before the commissioners make a decision on the file.   

The permit would allow construction of a 140-foot cell tower on a 20-acre parcel on Cindy Lane. The application was originally approved by the county hearing examiner in 2023 before being appealed, reconsidered and ultimately vacated through judicial review.